mediatized participation and forms of media use and

Transcription

4
ISSN 2029-865X
doi://10.7220/2029-865X.07.01
MEDIATIZED PARTICIPATION AND FORMS
OF MEDIA USE AND MULTIPLE MEANING
MAKING: THE BALTIC PERSPECTIVE
Auksė BALČYTIENĖ
[email protected]
Professor, PhD
Department of Pubic Communications
Vytautas Magnus University
Kaunas, Lithuania
Aušra VINCIŪNIENĖ
[email protected]
Lecturer and Researcher, PhD
Kaunas, Lithuania
Lina AUŠKALNIENĖ
l.auškalnienė@pmdf.vdu.lt
PhD Candidate
Kaunas, Lithuania
ABSTRACT: In this paper all arguments move around the idea that there is a very close
interrelationship between the status of being an informed citizen, and public participation,
activism and engagement in social life. For that reason, contemporary media are seen not just
as separate channels representing ideas and interests of different groups and social divisions of
society. While providing news and information, and conveying common values and ideals, any
media has potential to gather people with similar interests and to encourage their involvement
in public activity. Holding on such normative vision of media’s role for democracy this paper,
however, shows that ‘political alienation’ (low political and associational participation, distrust
in public institutions, low readership of newspapers and engagement only with entertaining
content, and other issues) is among the biggest drawbacks and challenges for young
democracies. Based on data from representative public opinion survey on media access and
use in Lithuania, the paper further argues that the registered data of public distrust in media
and general ‘apoliticism’ may be permanently reinforced by conventional mass media.
KEYWORDS: mediatization, participation, engagement, media use, young audiences, Baltic states
Mediatized participation and forms of media use and multiple meaning making: The Baltic perspective
Media Transformations
INTRODUCTION
No matter how broad or specific academic debates on changes in media and
communications are or could be, in any of them it is almost impossible to escape any of the subsequent themes such as the globalization of media messages
and growing multiculturalism, poly-centrality and the heterogeneity of local
media systems, domination of media in public and personal life, technological
diffusion and increasing individualism, supremacy of social networks, or other
contemporary media developments.
The magnitude of changes our present-day societies and their media systems
undergo is indeed striking. The new epoch of liquid (late or second) modernity
is charged not only with visions and ideals of technological improvement and
increasing effectiveness, of complex and global economies, of faster flow and
contra-flows (Castells, 2009; Thussu, 2007), but the new era is also filled with
new types of crises, losses, fears, uncertainties, and devaluations (Bauman, 2000).
Change takes over in all spheres of human life, so it is also shadowed with sweeping
social and cultural alterations. Hence, a general feeling of liquidity and temporariness, of weaker social structures and routines, traditions and customs, of fluidity of
connections and bonds seems to penetrate all social relations and cultural forms.
Even more, these changes and developments are further charged with ideas of local
responsiveness, cultural specificity, heterogeneity, images and simulations transforming both public and private spheres, individual activities, and everyday lives.
Those widely discussed and registered social and cultural changes and developments towards more individualized, more personalized engagements, information access and consumption, furthermore, smoothly diffuse and mix into all
arenas of human activity. In the political context, for example, another face of
increasing individualization, of so-called ‘becoming’, turns out to be evident. As
already observed in various studies, the idea of individualization is specifically
related to the slow collapse and disintegration of citizenship, to the loss of community feeling, and to the loss of an understanding of what ‘togetherness’ means
(Bauman, 2000). According to Zygmunt Bauman – one of the most influential
thinkers of our times – in contemporary societies “the ‘public’ is colonized by the
‘private’; ‘public interest’ is reduced to a curiosity about the private lives of public
figures, and the art of public life is narrowed to the public display of private affairs
and public confessions of private sentiments” (Bauman, 2000: 37).
Furthermore, the demise of citizenship in the political sphere means that the public arena is filled with the concerns and preoccupations of people as individuals,
5
6
Auksė BALČYTIENĖ | Aušra VINCIŪNIENĖ | Lina AUŠKALNIENĖ
leaving little room for other concerns. “What prompts people to venture onto the
stage is not so much the search for common causes and for the ways to negotiate the meanings of common good and the principles of life in common, as the
desperate need for ‘networking’” (Bauman 2000: 37). Accordingly, the preferred
method of ‘community-building’, idea contribution, or finding consensus on important issues is simplified and reduced to attempts of sharing intimacies.
Likewise, political participation and political communication matters also enter
a stage of flux. All rules and routines that seemed to have worked in political
life before have been changed and are further changing with the arrival of new
requests of strategic communications, news management, and image making. It
is likely that, with continuing globalization, Internetization and mediatization,
everything will change and flow, and everything will become liquid. Contemporary change has the all-inclusive character that smoothly goes into the sphere of
media access and use, public engagement, development of informed attentiveness to public affairs, and issues of general public participation.
The idea of engagement seems to be an interesting concept and also a fairly descriptive metaphor, denoting additional aspects of social changes, particularly in
the types of media accessed as well as the informational preferences of media
users. As shown in different studies, people tend to exchange newspaper reading with Internet-using activities. Their thematic preferences are also less and
less attached to political matters but center around entertainment. Also, there is
a significant body of research that identifies obvious shifts away from traditional
types of public engagement, such as voting or party membership, participation
in different associations, and voting in elections, to general apathy and decline
of participation and engagement in political and civic life (e.g. Blumler and
Kavanagh, 1999; Norris, 2003; Dahlgren, 2009; Coleman and Blumler, 2009).
Meanwhile another line of thought was developed in parallel, which rests on the
idea that all the types of new media means (such as online alternatives on the
Internet or social networks, or, to say it more generally, the Internetization as
general tendency in the modern world) could contribute significantly to the fostering of democratic processes through knowledge exchange and deliberation that,
consequently, could lead to public engagement and participation. At the same
time, although raising appropriate concerns, this line of thinking also leads to a
number of subsequent questions: Who those new media users and online participants are, and what preferences in contemporary media do they have? What do
they think of public issues and public life in general, how do they use media, and
how do they act in public life?
The constantly growing numbers of such questions proves that studying media use
and its treatment characteristics by different audience groups is especially needed.
As some studies keep pointing out, it appears that individual citizens – particularly
younger audiences – take the complex matrix of life-style (issue-based, micro-oriented) and local politics and incorporate these with their personalized expectations
of politics shifting the main emphasis in their public interactions towards sharing.
Whether such social shift grounds the activities of all media users, or whether this
is mainly associated with the life styles and media use habits of younger, Internetsavvy audiences, remains to be seen.
Altogether, among those different findings and critical views on changes in the
sphere of political communication and transformations of the roles of media
and its audiences, one idea seems to become especially strong. Briefly, it is more
and more noticeable that, as it turns out with assessments of any changes and
developments, it is not possible to approach new developments and understand
these by applying old concepts and established theoretical constructs.
In attempts to describe all changes and transformations of late-modern society – to
scrutinize the issues of public engagement in the mediated environment – we need
to take a new perspective. We need to develop a new, all-inclusive approach. Only
with such an attitude will we be able to approach the unknown, will we be able to
develop an understanding of changes and social and cultural shifts in the way societies think about and enact modern democracy.
***
As suggested earlier, among those theoretical constructs and concepts directly
associated with the changes observed in contemporary societies, is the idea of
media supremacy and power, popularly described as the process of ongoing mediatization. Generally speaking, mediatization is the process whereby society, to
an increasing degree, is submitted to, or becomes dependent on, the media institution and its logic (Stromback, 2011; Hjarvard, 2010). As a process, mediatization comprises dual developments – on the one hand, the media have become
integrated into the operations of other social institutions and relations such as
politics or business life, whereas, at the same time, the media have also acquired
the status of social institutions in their own right. As a result of these complex
and parallel developments, all social relations within the respective institutions,
between institutions, and in society at large, are formed and their interactions
occur and take place via the media. Contemporary media is not only an arena.
Media is not only a mediator of communication flows and contra-flows. Media
(and its logic) is an active agent of modern life.
7
8
The term ‘media logic’ refers to the institutional and technological logics and
influences in which actual communication takes form. It, for example, is related
to how (or whether at all) politics is described in media texts, or what other
means are used by media to dominate political life. As such, media logic also
influences the nature and function of social relations as well as the sender, the
content and the receivers of the communication actions.
Briefly, mediatization acts as an indispensible factor within the all-inclusive and
continuing modernization of society and its culture. Mediatization is observed
not only as a process; it is also a factor of equal significance and status as much
as other modern-day issues such as globalization, Internetization, individualization, commodification, or secularization.
Although mediatization is often addressed as mediation, such description lacks
accuracy. If mediation refers only to the aspects of communication by the means of
media, mediatization acts as an influential factor by itself. It commences social and
cultural changes and refers to a more long-lasting process whereby social and cultural institutions (and modes of interaction within and between them) are changed
as a consequence of the growth of the contemporary media’s influence.
It is not difficult to observe that among those essential characteristics of mediatization is a strong drift towards domination, power-establishment, and market
orientation. The latter tendency has an adequately strong focus on audience reception and needs satisfaction as well as gratification. In such context, and with
the increasing centrality of media and its omnipresence in all social processes
thus leading to the creation of the ‘mediatized public sphere’ where it actively involves the political discourse (among all other discourses) and symbolically embodies, as well as represents, political artifacts, practices, arrangements and actors
via its own, media-shaped and media orchestrated logic (Blumler and Kavanagh,
1999; Coleman, 2005; Couldry, 2008; Bennett, 2008; Balčytienė, 2010; Lievrouw,
2011), it seems to be a reasonable step to approach and study participation and
engagement as predominantly communicative activities.
Briefly, the proposed approach puts the strongest stress on the need to look at
democratic participation primarily as a process of communication. It furthermore stresses the need to study the forms of media use as aspects of mediated
engagement.
There exits a significant number of studies that demonstrate close interrelationships between the status of being an informed citizen and higher levels of participation in public and social life (Vihalemm, 2012; Zhang et al., 2010; Tolbert
and McNeal, 2003; Scheufele and Nisbet, 2002). Even though different arguments
about ‘media malaise’ and ‘time displacement’ (Putnam, 2001) are listed in other
studies declaring that time spent with media can be meaningless and harmful to
extensive engagement, still a number of studies show positive relations between
different forms of civic and political engagement and the use of traditional (Eveland and Scheufele, 2000) or new media (Tolbert and McNeal, 2003; Quinteller
and Vissers, 2008). Generally, all these findings suggest that it is impossible to
study engagement as a process of its own, and not take into the account a complex
set of other issues (such as media type and access preferences among different audience groups and the like). In short, all these debates and studies prove that the
contemporary notions of communication, media, and public participation mix
and mingle, creating new engagement and participation models.
We indeed live in media saturated environments where different media and
different actors, contexts and cultural frameworks, power relationships and
communicative styles mix and mingle, thus creating niche-oriented, specialized and alternative interest-oriented projects. Empowered with networked
character and an adequate means of interactive communication, all these new
projects gradually develop into online social networking platforms, expanding
far beyond the conventional mass media. Even more, it is not only the issues
of media diversification, ‘de-massification’ or media expansion that need to be
looked at with ‘new eyes’. The attempt to draw the line between civic, private
and political is no longer an easy thing to do, since “it is not always clear, where
participation in broader social and cultural activities, including consumption,
ends, and where civil society and politics begin” (Dahlgren, 2011: 1).
Such a ‘cultural turn’ in media engagement and participation analysis might be
the most attractive perspective to explain the ongoing changes and to shed light
on the meaning, practices, communication and identities (Dahlgren, 2006).
As noticed, an essential part of the conditions for a functioning democracy
are connected to subjective life experiences, hence the idea of ‘life politics’ (as
the concept of late modernity) dedicated to the politics of individual style and
transformation of self, dominates the realm of the contemporary.
All these new forms of political organization (and of understanding of what
constitutes ‘political’), furthermore, can be supplemented by Ulrich Beck’s
(1997) notion of ‘sub-politics’. The author refers to these as to new modes of
operation of the political, in which agents are coming from outside of the officially recognized political and corporate systems, and they appear on the stage
of social design, including different professional groups and organizations, ci-
9
10
tizen’s issue-centered initiatives and social movements, and finally, individuals.
As for Beck, new forms of politics do not directly address nation-states; they,
nevertheless, alter it from below.
Likewise, the concept of ‘mediatized citizenship’ (Dahlgren, 2011) portrays a
new form of participation, where people and organizations link up with each
other for purposes of communication – of sharing information, providing mutual support, organizing, mobilizing or solidifying collective identities.
***
Among those essential driving forces of contemporary networked and individual-interests-focused societies are initiatives based on ‘bottom-up’ approaches
as well as other appearances of networked individualism, engagement, and activism. As identified, contemporary media and information users are furthermore confronted with additional requests. They are expected to have skills and
abilities to navigate complex and interactive social and technological networks
on their own. They are also requested to learn to cope with the consequences of
the freedom of experimenting. These requests, in fact, lead to another essential
observation – to an important social shift associated with the decreasing authoritative and meaning-making power of various expert institutions and public
systems such as public bodies, academia, and even professional journalism.
In spite of a number of justified worries, these developments are also charged with
a firm degree of optimism. As proposed by proponents envisioning the Internet as
a network offering different alternatives, these online networks possess a unique
intellectual power and interactive potential which can assist in the development
of the so-called Fifth Estate in our societies (Dutton, 2009; Boyd-Barrett, 2007).
As argued by William Dutton and other followers of the idea of the Fifth Estate,
this new social knowledge and public potential comes as a completely new and individually acquired knowledge that people may obtain through their engagement
and participation in socially constructed virtual dynamic networks. The obtained
knowledge can later be used as a controlling power in the real-life situations against
all other public authorities and estates with official power in a society; such as mass
media, politicians, community representatives, different businesses, teachers, medical doctors, and so forth (Dutton, 2009). In other words, the Fifth Estate – as a
collective power of ordinary people – generates a form of combined intelligence
where public knowledge about any given topic or subject is based on the ongoing
exchange of views, opinions, and information between many, rather than pulling
the wisdom of only a privileged few.
At the same time, despite these hopeful visions, it became evident the implications of increasing Internet use and online individualization are indeed unclear.
As it seems, the goals, ideals, and expectations of public political visibility in these
networks of networks are often not so much related to a search for the common
causes and principles of well-informed and responsible public and citizenship, as
to a desperate need for networking, bonding, socialization, and relationship-building. If individualization enables experimentation, its creative potential is rather
short-lived and gradually socially and culturally disintegrating. Thus different
studies, observations and reports (Gross, 2009; Nieminen, 2010) have sounded
warning bells reminding us that modern societies are at risk of being divided into
too many different niches – into too many ideologically-shaped virtual and physical associations and formations that, while they may inspire and offer solace, in
fact lead to societal fragmentation and social polarization rather than a common
space for meeting, discussion and public dialogue. But invidualization is here to stay, as Zygmunt Bauman noticeably stresses, and it
is all of us – contemporary media users, content contributors, and consumers –
who face the task of solving all these critical matters. It may happen that the Fifth
Estate will grow and will find adequate responses to all the emerging questions
and difficulties of liquid modernity. Or maybe other instruments (such as professional journalism and its enduring ideals) will be re-discovered and their ideals
re-thought to meet the challenges of the new epoch of uncertainty and liquidity.
Generally, all these factors of individualization and mediatization should be
viewed as an ongoing process where media involvement and contributions
are studied as reflecting, taking-over and dis-embedding social relations from
existing contexts and, furthermore, re-embedding these into new social conditions and emerging contexts. Understanding and comprehending these new
situations requires careful analysis.
***
The main goal of this paper, therefore, is to look at how contemporary media is
used by different audience groups, and to question whether certain strategies
and forms could be identified as leading to engagement with issues essential to
political meaning and participation in public life. By aiming at this task, we also
look at the driving forces and the consequences of change observed in audience
thematic preferences and choices of media channels. By analyzing obtained results, we also concentrate more closely on the ideas of social fragmentation and
individualism – those opposing and combining trends observed both locally
and globally – and observe more carefully how these ideas are contextually ve-
11
12
rified through, for example, individualized media access and information consumption in selected media cultures and specific news markets.
Among other distinctive features of this paper are its exceptional attention to
media and audience changes in the small Baltic nations. Broadly speaking, all
post-communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe (including the three
Baltic States) already have the historical experience of approaching, dealing, and
assigning meaning to very rapid change. Only over the two past decades these countries had to undergo complete transformations in the fields of politics
and economy as well as in their social and cultural relations, traditions, and also
their mentalities. If assessed from today’s perspective, for the three Baltic countries, these two decades were the time not only for rapid changes, adoptions, and
adaptations. It was also the time for authentic discoveries and learning.
METHOD AND THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
All concepts discussed so far – media access and use, and mediatization of participation and public engagement – are closely linked to the idea of quality of democracy. As extensively discussed, assessments of the qualities of democracy are achieved
through studying several issues. In most cases, attention is paid to the level of political support and public participation, and also to respect for civil liberties. The role,
function and democratic performance of mass media are analyzed as well – its democratic performance and levels of professionalism are measured according to media’s role as information provider, interests’ mediator, and watchdog (Trappel et al.,
2011). Another issue to be looked at is the representation and public engagement
and the strength of civil society (public involvement and participation in social and
public affairs). Or, alternatively, levels of public distrust in public institutions, institutional corruption or clientelism in a society in general could be studied as well.
As argued by many, any explanations of the quality of democracy in a country,
however, would be incomplete without the analysis of the characteristics of a
given society’s political culture. Particularly through this perspective, the light
is shed on cultural aspects of existing social structures and the particularities of
prevailing relations and functions as well as actual performance.
As popularly conceived, the development of a democratic political culture’s individual characteristics seems to be fundamental as they refer to the will of the
people to take part and be responsible for the outcomes of social life. According
to this line of thinking, development of a civil society is crucial for democracy.
As some scholars identify it, civil society itself is democracy. Both in civil so-
13
ciety and democracy the citizens must be willing and also have competences,
thus be able, to assume responsibility for public life. They must be willing to get
involved in public life and have certain capacities. But, most importantly, they
also must be free, ethical human beings – they must possess certain skills, empathies, and features needed to maintain social partnerships and sustain mutually built social structures.
As discussed elsewhere, socially divided and traumatized post-communist societies have their own attributes and ‘illnesses’. Most importantly, these are the societies where public trust and support is fundamentally destroyed. Re-building such
new qualities – democratic social relations, trust, and social capital – takes time.
***
In a representative democracy, voting in elections is a minimal form of involvement, engagement with politics, and participation. Higher political involvement
also means higher quality. Associational and voluntary involvement in different
types of organizations is crucially important because of reasons already explained,
however in CEE countries (or more specifically – in the Baltic countries) general
involvement is still very low – party membership, trade-union membership, and
electoral turnout, in general, are lower in Central and Eastern Europe than in Western countries1; associational engagement is also low.
Another important aspect of political support is trust and confidence in public
and political institutions. Institutional trust is crucial for the effective functioning
of the political system. The absence of political trust and confidence in institutions fosters corruption, and further impedes the development of civil society.
But, as the available data also suggests, public confidence in political institutions
is also determined by the actual performance of political authorities (EHDR – Estonian Human Development Report, 2011).
Public trust in institutions is quite low in all three Baltic countries, but it is especially low in Lithuania. Even stronger parallels could be drawn here between
political expectations accumulated by the public (especially in the pre-elections
period) and the institutional performance of public authorities in administrative
apparatus in general. Certain contradictions were observed in Lithuania in the
years of very high economic success and growth – although economic life in the
country was booming, the levels of trust in political institutions did not improve.
In contrast, Estonia stands out among the three Baltic countries with higher trust
accomplished through better institutional performance, higher economic indicators, and more effective government (EHDR, 2011).
1
Party
membership
in Lithuania is
fairly low and is
around 3% of all
voters.
14
Comparatively low public trust levels among all three Baltic countries show that
those countries are trapped in a vicious circle of ‘political alienation’.
Distrust in political institutions stimulates the rise of populist parties, whereas the
growth of populism in turn increases popular disenchantment with the political
system. On the same note, it is important to stress that corruption levels are fairly
high and the situation has worsened in recent years. This has happened in all spheres of public sector institutions, media included. For example, as regards journalism, 72% of Lithuanians say the media is corrupt (19% say it’s ‘very corrupt’);
78% of Lithuanian company representatives say the media is corrupt (31% ‘very’);
83% of Lithuanian civil servants say the media’s corrupt (32% say ‘very corrupt’).
The ‘good news’ is that people say the media is less corrupt than parliament and
the courts (Lietuvos korupcijos žemėlapis, 2011).
2
Among the
conventional forms
of participation
institutional channels
seem to be reachable in
all democratic countries
(they rest on preplanned organisation,
such as participation
in elections or
referendums). The
availability of a
corporate channel
is beneficial by
itself, because it
uses associational
involvement through
which participation is
stimulated. Spontaneity
of application and
emotional nature
of participation are
among the typical
characteristics for
another form of
participation: direct
action. Direct action is
a short-term activity,
usually consisting of
emotional protest or
support. Mass media
is nonetheless an
important channel for
participation because
it allows expressing
opinions – in such a
way, the journalists and
the media are acting as
an indirect intermediate
representing the
interests of the citizens.
The persistence of corruption undoubtedly ruins democratic political culture.
Corruption can easily become the rule rather than the exception. In a society
where clientelist relations are dominating, this corruption involves trying to gain
access through unofficial means, through bribery, and its specific act is an attempt
to sell influence and abuse one’s power position.
It is indeed possible to explain low political participation numbers through
such observations in modern life as the ongoing political individualization, the
rise of consumer-oriented life-styles, the increasing role of television and strategic communications in communicating popular messages to voters, and so
forth. However, what may sound as an appropriate explanation in the countries
with longer democratic traditions than those of CEE appears to be insufficient
argumentation to explain low party or associational membership in post-communist countries – countries that have entered the field of global changes only
very recently.
Although qualitative studies report about the potential rise of participatory
consciousness in Central and Eastern Europe, the participatory political culture there is generally absent. Research studies confirm the main reasons for
political alienation is distrust in politics, persistent and negative views about
politics in general (sustained through sensationalist media messages), and critical assessment of an individual’s abilities and qualifications to be active in politics. At the same time, party membership is also low in CEE countries because
parties themselves do not invest in having more members. Indeed, it seems that
both ordinary people and political elites treat and understand political party
membership as a distant function, a more elite-activities focused occupation,
but not an instrument through which a coherent, collective identity could be
15
developed. Naturally, it becomes very difficult (if not impossible) to develop
political relations and to build up political membership in a society where such
views and opinions prevail.
Generally speaking, there exists a strong direct interrelationship between public engagement, social affairs, public awareness, and participation. As mentioned, public engagement and participation is a necessary precondition for
democracy.
At the same time, we need to remember that participation is a voluntary act. People decide to participate. The quality of participation also increases depending
on the availability of channels2 and resources, e.g. financial and intellectual.
Both conditions are equally significant (public willingness to participate, and
availability of channels in a certain cultural setting), and they both depend on
many factors, such as the presence of a democratic political culture with high
levels of public confidence and the readiness and willingness of the people to
participle, but also on more practical functions and appearances, such as the
attempts of elites to fight all social negativities (corruption, the non-institutionalized or unregulated lobbyism and protectionism).
On the other hand, there is research data proving that if existing conditions do not
favor public participation, and when channels do not function as they should, or
when civic participation is suppressed and trustful sources of information are not
officially available (media is instrumentalized, self-censored by journalists, or is not
functioning to meet its democratic performance functions), other forms – alternatives to conventional modes of participation – become a useful soil to cultivate a
common understanding between the people (Balčytienė, 2011; 2012). As discussed,
throughout the soviet decades a cultural sphere in the subdued nations of Central
and Eastern Europe functioned as a sphere relatively free from the powers of the
dominating ideology of those times – therefore it had the biggest chance to become
a mobilizing agent in a society and thus turned out to be an alternative space, a socalled ‘substitutional channel’, where public ideals and concerns could have been
nourished through the language of cultural metaphors, allegories and symbols3.
All things considered, it could be envisioned with the help of both – this short
excursus to CEE journalism’s history and contemporary media developments
towards individualized access and use – that certain alternatives, for example
through new media and social networking means, may also be developed for
the modern times.
3
In Soviet Lithuania,
poetry, literature, drama,
and other forms of
the arts functioned as
an alternative cultural
sphere and promoted
public consolidation.
In this respect, the arts
(reading of literary press,
attendance of theatres, also
environmental protection)
were a way of informal
public participation. To
be more specific, the
cultural sphere and the arts
acted as a ‘substitutional
channel’, through which
the Lithuanian nation
was consolidated and
quasi-participation was
manifested. Despite the fact
that quasi-participation
leads to an observational
mode that is passive by its
nature, in Soviet Lithuania
the cultural sphere acted as
a form of silent resistance,
and its political powers
were liberated as soon as
the political and ideological
control was removed.
16
***
4
The survey
was conducted
as a part of the
research project
“Journalism in
Lithuania: Context
and Culture”
(MIP012/2011)
funded by the
Research Council
of Lithuania.
In this paper, the discussion moves around the results obtained from the Representative National Public Opinion Survey on Media Use4, conducted in Lithuania
(N=1023) in October 2011. Respondents aged 12–75+ were selected randomly, with
datasets covering all regions of Lithuania. The survey was outsourced and conducted by trained interviewers of the public opinion research company RAIT, using a
face‐to‐face interview method. Probability sampling was used with a margin of sampling error for the complete data set of ±3,1%. The interviewed sample was weighted
in relation to the census of Lithuania and balanced to match general socio-demographic parameters for age, gender, education, income and type of community. A
multiple-choice questionnaire (containing 100 questions) was specifically designed
to draw the parallels between a mediated environment and the participatory activities of media audiences within this environment. Particular attention is given here,
therefore, to the analysis of media consumption patterns and routines and media
social connectivity assessments.
MEDIA INCLUSIVENESS
As discussed, associational membership is generally considered an important
qualitative indicator that is used to measure social integration, such as public
participation, in various voluntary organizations, issue-oriented clubs, or other
associational groups and circles. As the obtained data from the public survey
shows, more than two thirds (69%) of survey respondents have never been involved in any civic organization or association (such as a professional union,
church community, sports team or cultural/art club of any kind, youth organization or initiative, political organization or activist group, etc.). The tendencies
are quite similar in all demographic segments (see Figure 1). However, people
aged 75+ appear to be most active participants: elders (aged 75+) are more likely to belong to social organizations than adolescents and youngsters (40% compared to 23.2% in group 15-24 and 17% in group 25-34). Differences in other
measures of socio-demographics such as income, education, or gender did not
show any significant differences, except for the greater involvement of people
living in middle-sized towns (30–180 thousand inhabitants) – 45,8%.
17
Figure 1.
Civic
involvement and
associational
participation
among different
age groups.
*Representative National Public Opinion Survey on Media Use, October 2011, Lithuania, N=1023.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Are you involved and participate in any (at least one) civic
organizations or associations (such as professional union, church community, sports team or cultural/
arts club of any kind, youth organization or initiative, political organization or activist group, etc.)?’.
***% of all survey respondents in different age groups.
Having in mind quite low numbers of civic involvement it is still important to
analyze whether more socially engaged media users possess different attitudes
towards the media.
As popularly agreed, media functions as one of the most powerful agents of socialization and plays a significant role in shaping the attitudes of individuals. It
also should act as a ‘watchdog’ or a ‘Fourth Estate’ in a society. Generally, media
is an important medium related to the active engagement of citizens and is used
to gain information on social, economic, and political affairs.
In the audience survey, ‘media-citizen/user relationships’ were measured by assessing respondents’ answers to a number of questions related to media’s role
and performance (see Figure 2). Most of the interviewees agreed with the statement that ‘an active citizen should follow news in media on a regular basis’
(77,1%). Interestingly enough, socially more active individuals (who are involved in various organizations, associations, etc.) tended to agree with this statement more (82,4%) than those who did not belong to any organization (74,6%)
(Figure 3).
18
Figure 2.
Perceptions on
media’s role and
performance.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’.
***% of all survey respondents (N=1023)
People of all age groups were worried that media does not meet their expectations. Less than half agreed that ‘local and global news in media are not too
complicated for ordinary citizens to understand’ (42,2%); and less than one
third (27,2%) said that ‘opinions in the media are similar to ones of ordinary
people’. It appears that a smaller group of respondents, who are more socially
active, understand the content provided by the media better (51,6% of them
claimed that in comparison to 38,7% among the rest). Moreover, the signs of
media alienation are being documented as well: both groups seemed to be mostly uncertain about the proximity of opinions and views in the media to the
ones of ordinary citizens (40,8% and 42,3% respectively).
ENGAGING THE DISENGAGED
Internetization and technological diffusion can be thought of as recent and distinguishing developments in the Baltic communication markets. In small Baltic countries, as everywhere else in the world, the Internet has significantly transformed
the roles and habits of its audience, especially of young media users. Moreover, in
these countries, due to the high Internet penetration and outstanding online media
popularity, some unique tendencies of individualized media use, as well as a rapidly evolving culture of more active involvement (through niche, alternative and,
mainly, online media initiatives), can be witnessed. A digital media explosion followed the technological advancements (such as rapid yearly growth of the Internet
together with the dynamic growth in the numbers of technological devices) in all
countries around the world; and the latter tendency was succeeded by the growth of
‘next generation users’ (Dutton and Blank, 2011).
19
Figure 3.
Correlation
between civic
involvement
(associational
participation) and
perceptions on
media’s role and
performance.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’ (Here
correlations are made between the individual answers of the respondents and their civic involvement or
associational participation).
***‘% of respondents in each of two groups: active and involved in civic organizations, associations, etc.
(N=318) and not active and not involved in any civic organizations, associations, etc. (N=705).
Online media use and engagement is a phenomenon of a new generation of
media consumers who are embracing the opportunities new technologies and
social communication means are offering. Results from the public opinion survey convey that engaged audiences (usually younger media consumers) browse
online portals, forums, blogs, and comment online more often – indeed, their
online activities are rich and diverse. Overall, Internet penetration in some age
groups (12-14 and 15-24) reaches nearly 100% and online social networks are
gaining power as well (see Figure 4).
20
Figure 4.
Active use of
Internet and
social media
among different
age groups.
**Diagram depicts percentages of all respondents in different age groups who: 1) use Internet; 2) use social
media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, Klase.lt, LinkedIn, etc); 3) are active and engaged online (search for political news online on a regular basis, engage in online discussions, comment on issues, contact
politicians, etc.); 4) read blogs in Lithuanian or other languages; 5) write a blog or have a personal website.
Young people and students between 15-24 are the most active Internet and media
users – 81,4% of them use the Internet 6-7 days a week, more then a half (55,9%)
spending several hours a day browsing for daily news online; additionally, 74,6%
connect to social media at least once a day and 45,8% do it more often, spending
several hours a day in total on social networking sites (see Figures 5 and 6).
Figure 5.
Active use of
Internet among
different age
groups.
21
**Diagram depicts percentages of all respondents in different age groups who: 1) use Internet; 2) use
Internet 6-7 days a week; 3) spend several hours a day on the Internet.
Figure 6.
Active use of
social media
among
different age
groups.
**Diagram depicts percentages of all respondents in different age groups who: 1) use social media (Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, MySpace, Klase.lt, LinkedIn, etc); 2) connect to social media at least once a day;
3) connect to social media every day for several hours.
Activism online goes far beyond traditional forms of participation (e.g. voting) and
offers diverse types of everyday, extra-institutional activities – civic-oriented acts,
which are undertaken on a more regular basis than elections, or other acts that
lie within the institutional framework, e.g. signing petitions, boycotting certain
products or marching against corporate interests, celebrating ‘Earth hour’ or ‘Buy
Nothing Day’ (Theocharis, 2011; Christensen, 2011). Various political activities online – such as looking for information on the websites of political parties, commenting on public interest topics, contacting officials via electronic means – might be
called as extra-institutional activities (Theocharis, 2011).
Generally, all types of more active (political) engagement online still attracts
quite small numbers of the general sample. Only 2,2% of survey respondents
admitted they have contacted politicians or political party members via e-mail,
2,5% have signed a petition, 4,1% have taken part in political discussions online (or in social media) and raised their opinion or commented anonymously
(4,9%), 9,9% have searched for information on websites of political parties and
14,5% have done at least one of these activities online (see Figure 7).
22
Figure 7.
Forms/ways of
active (political)
engagement
online.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Have you recently performed any of the outlined activities online?’.
***% of all survey respondents (N=1023).
Figure 8.
Correlation
between forms/
ways of active
(political)
engagement
online and
associational
participation.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Have you recently performed any of the outlined activities online?’.
***‘% of respondents in each of two groups: active and involved in civic organizations, associations, etc.
(N=318) and not active and not involved in any civic organizations, associations, etc. (N=705).
Interestingly, those survey respondents who, in real life, are more civically and
socially active (belong to civic organizations, associations, etc.) are more brave
about raising their own opinions on political affairs directly by contacting politicians or commenting on Facebook and other social networking sites, whereas
23
those not belonging to any organizations are more passive observers and information consumers, as well as preferring to comment anonymously (see Figure 8).
MEDIA CHOICES AND POPULAR THEMES
Another important finding is that different types and channels of media serve different functions when it comes to the informational needs of news consumers. Clearly, people in Lithuania turn to TV mostly for crime news (77,4% of all respondents
search for this type of information) and political affairs (72,3%) (see Figure 9). The
same is applicable to print press (28,8% and 25,7% accordingly). Cultural affairs on
TV are mostly viewed by senior audiences (e.g. 72% of people between 55-64). For
sports news they rely on TV as well as go online: 82% of teenagers access sports
online in both media types, and of youngsters (15-24) 63% watch sports on TV.
Interest about celebrity news stands out in the case of magazines (20,8% of respondents look for this type of information). Meanwhile, activities online are more
directed to the subjective, self-reflective actions – most active users of the Internet
associate this medium mostly with leisure, hobbies and personal interests (30,1% of
all respondents search for this type of information). However, when they look for
news it is mostly specialized professional information (31,4%) or technology and
science news (29%) that attracts their attention.
Figure 9.
Media use
for certain
information
and news
topics.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘What types of news do you follow or search for information
in different types of media?’.
24
The study discloses that in news consumption, private interest topics (crime news,
ICT & science news, celebrity news, leisure, traveling and information about a
particular country, and specialized/professional information) prevails over pubic
interest topics (political affairs, cultural affairs, and sports) in all media types, especially magazines and online portals (see Figure 10). It is particularly noteworthy
that approximately the same percentage of people search for crime news as for political affairs (accordingly 35,3% and 31,9%) as well as are interested in corruption
and scandals as in business news and economics (accordingly 24,6% and 22,1%).
Also, many participants of the survey expressed a strong desire to be more informed about matters of more private than public interest – social issues (29,6% of all
respondents seek more of this type of information), student life and youth activities
(20,3%), health and medicine (19,5%), family, children and household (18,6%), nature and environment (18,4%), science and research (14,3%), and so forth.
Figure 10.
Information,
news topics
that are mostly
searched for and
mostly lacking
in the media.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘What types of news do you follow or search for information
in different types of media?’.
Based on data from a representative public opinion survey on media access and
use in Lithuania, one can argue that observations of public distrust and general
apoliticism may also be permanently reinforced by mass media. Sensationalist or
cynical connotations, overall negativism, and increasing attention to crime news
and disasters that media convey are even more internalized by citizens. In other
words, by directing public attention to sensationalist issues, the media actively
contribute to this general alienation procedure, thus becoming an ‘escapist’ medium functioning for the needs of unengaged and passive audiences. At the same
time, the results of the public opinion survey also convey that engaged audiences
follow their own preferences as well as niche and specialized agendas.
SEARCHING FOR ALTERNATIVES
Socio-demographic characteristics of the audience sample shows people engaged
and active online are equally represented by four different age groups from 15 to
54 years (among them 19,5% 15-24 year-olds, 21,3% 25-34 year-olds, 21,8% 35-44
year-olds and 19,2% 45-54 year-olds). They are higher educated, mostly employed (64,5%) and live in the major Lithuanian cities (45,7%). When asked to assess
the opportunities and drawbacks of online political participation, the majority of
these respondents acknowledged that ‘new technologies stimulate the human interactions’ (73%) and were aware of their own possibilities to create online content
(66,8%) (see Figure 11). However, merely half of the sample agreed with the statements that ‘Internet helps to solve problems that are important to communities’
(50%) and ‘Internet creates a possibility to gather for collective actions’ (50,5%).
It shows more skepticism towards the Internet space as an effective platform for
community-building, civic matters to be discussed and real decisions to be made.
Moreover, nearly half of the sample (48,6 %) did not know what sources to trust,
and only 27,1 % felt their data was safe online.
25
26
Figure 11.
Perceptions on
the Internet
sphere among
those engaged
and active
online.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Do you agree or disagree with the following statements?’.
***% of respondents that are active and engaged online – search for political news online on a regular basis,
engage in online discussions, comment on issues, contact politicians, etc. (N=148).
When talking about online activism, their enthusiasm to search for alternative,
niche sources of information is extremely high; the same goes for the audience’s
involvement in online content creation. Surprisingly, there is no direct connection between associational participation and blog readership; the majority
of online content contributors are also not among those who are socially active
and involved in civic organizations (see Figure 12).
27
Figure 12.
Correlation
between active
(political)
engagement
online,
associational
participation
and readership
of alternative
media (blogs)
as well as
involvement in
online content
creation.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Do you read or follow any blogs online in Lithuanian or other
languages and why (mark all relevant answers)?’ and ‘Do you write a blog or have a personal website
online and why (mark all relevant answers)?’ (here correlations are made between the individual answers of the respondents and their civic involvement or associational participation and active (political)
engagement online).
***‘% of respondents in each of two groups: reading/following blogs in Lithuanian and other languages
(N=230) and writing a blog or having a personal website (N=72).
It becomes clear from the research data that the main readers and writers of
online blogs in Lithuania are people in their teenage years or devoted Internet
users – i.e. 48,6% of young people between 15-24, 35% between 25-34, 25,5%
between 35-44 and 23,1% between 12-14 search for alternative information and
read blogs in both Lithuanian and other languages; 23,1% of 12-14 year olds
and 16,9% of 15-24 year olds, followed by smaller percentages of people in other age groups, write their own blogs or have a personal website (see Figure 4).
The reasons behind the reliance on alternative media, i.e. blogs, is mainly looking
for new, original ideas (12% of all survey respondents stated this) or alternative
opinions on various public matters (7,2%), but also searching for specialized information related to one’s profession (8,7%) or hobbies (5,7%) (see Figure 13). All in
all, 74,3% of all blog readers turn to blogs for alternative information not available
in mainstream media and 46,5% of them are searching for profession- and hobbyoriented information. Accordingly, people who write their own blogs or have a personal website do so equally because of personal and professional reasons.
28
Figure 13.
Personal
motives of
following
various Internet
blogs and
creating content
online.
**Respondents of the survey were asked: ‘Do you read or follow any blogs online in Lithuanian or other
languages and why (mark all relevant answers)?” and “Do you write a blog or have a personal website
online and why (mark all relevant answers)?’.
Evidently, the proliferation of media channels and converging communication
technologies of networked character, stimulate bottom-up projects providing
the exchange of user-generated content. As observed from our study, the Internet is mainly associated with richer knowledge and information access,
and grassroots and global virtual participation activities. The Internet is also a
channel for alternative communication. At the same time, less structured, more
open and accessible online channels still lack this all-embracing character. These claims open new perspectives for discussion on how online media use by
certain audience groups effects the general participation culture in the country
and vice versa.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS
All these developments and changes discussed above prove, once again, that
the surrounding media realities are very complex and ambiguous, hard to identify and recognize. It is becoming more and more difficult to make predictions
about a world in which a multitude of simultaneous processes is at play, including rapid globalization, technological diffusion, cultural convergence and
differentiation, as well as the struggle for, and even death of, ideals.
It is precisely due to this multiplicity of factors and processes that existing empirical instruments and social theories are becoming powerless and cannot
explain what is happening around us. The new times call for new tools and
completely new theoretical constructs that would allow us to describe and analyze these new social and cultural formations.
As observed and discussed with the help of concrete examples, fundamental
changes are also taking place in the fields of media and communications. It is
not only the technological diffusion or the mainstream media’s loss of its central
power in a society that installs all social changes in contemporary Europe. It is
not only the arrival and the rise of new communicative online spaces that have
become a common place and practice for millions of writers, public intellectuals and bloggers to offer their audiences and followers to choose and read their
commentary, recommendations and input on things that interest them, which
calls for attention. And it is not only the voicing of diverse and alternative opinions that counts on these new channels.
The biggest qualitative change in modern communications and democracy comes from the new media’s potential to have an impact on public discourses
by changing, re-framing or adapting to new technological and social requirements. The change is also coming from the rise of human agency and user
control. How and whether these new forms of media use and engagement will
develop to accommodate the new needs and adapt to these rapidly changing
situations, remains to be seen.
In addition to the general changes in the young democracies of Central and
Eastern Europe – and mainly those associated with rapid economic and social
restructuring – another factor seems to be an important observation in the development of certain moods in a transitional society. This is particularly linked
to the role and function of conventional mass media. As demonstrated in our
study, negative content is among the dominant themes in media. The rise and
increasing focus on negativism, crime news reporting and sensationalism also
29
30
affects how people feel, what they concentrate on and what they determine are
important issues to think about. These effects are especially dangerous for their
long-term consequences – such types of media-sustained narratives charged
with the virus of negativism could further penetrate other spheres of public life
and become dominating issues in popular discourses, etc.
Transferred to other contexts of social life, such moods also affect the general
public’s views on institutions and structures. Dominating news about corruption and dysfunctions in the public sector magnetize public attention and opinions, thus becoming prone to all types of sensationalism. The dominating negativism also affects popular moods in the sense that disappointments become
claimed on the misbehaviors of others. Thus a blame culture persists and is
further captured and creatively maintained by the mainstream mass media.
What we are discussing here – the rise of media alternatives, information inclusiveness, and public engagement and participation – is actually becoming a
regular, well-developed and also rewarding activity for many users and communications professionals in many countries around the world.
Furthermore, basic media use and access trends are showing that traditional
media consumption is going down, and consumption of new media – Internet
media and social networks – is increasing. It is not only that the Internet is a
major driving force here – it seems that technological advancements are coupled with other social changes in contemporary societies such as increasing
individualization, but also consumerism. Contemporary societies are indeed
divided into many different niches, and media fragmentation can indeed lead
to social polarization and not to a common space for meeting and discussion. All in all, contemporary societies are fragmented by the choices of individual consumers. One very clear version of such development could be visualized through the growth of interest-shaped communities, through ‘diasporic’
neighborhoods detached from geographic space but migrating around the issues of similar concern. Likewise, the Internet is not just a crucial medium for
spreading the idea of individualized engagement and access. It is also not a new
medium offering more choices, more views, and more opinions. It is also a cause of the fragmentation of contemporary societies and their audiences. Mediatized participation and forms of media use and multiple meaning making: The Baltic perspective
REFERENCES
Balčytienė, A. (2010). Baltic Media Structures and the Influence of Media. In
M. Golubeva and R. Gould (eds.), Shrinking Citizenship: Discursive Practices
that Limit Democratic Participation in Latvian Politics. Rodopi, pp. 53-65.
Balčytienė, A. (2011). Lithuania: Mixed Professional Values in a Small and
Highly Blurred Media Environment. In J. Trappel, H. Nieminen, L. W. Nord
(eds.), The Media for Democracy Monitor. A Cross National Study of Leading
News Media. Goteborg: Nordicom, pp. 175-202.
Balčytienė, A. (2012). Parallel or Together? Changes, Continuities, and
Prospects for Journalism Professionalization in CEE. Paper presented at the
international conference “Matters of journalism: Understanding professional
challenges and dilemmas” organized by Polish Communication Association in
Gdansk, September 14-16.
Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Beck, U. (1997). Subpolitics: Ecology and Disintegration of Institutional
Power. Organization and Environment, Vol. 10, Issue 1, 52–65.
Bennett, W. L. (2008). Changing Citizenship in the Digital Age. In W. L.
Bennett (ed.), Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage
Youth. MIT Press, pp. 1–24.
Blumler, J. G., Kavanagh, D. (1999). The Third Age of Political
Communication: Influences and Features. Political Communication, Vol. 16,
209–230.
Boyd-Barrett, O. (2007). Alternative Reframing of Mainstream Media Frames.
In K. T. Daya (ed.), Media on the Move: Global Flow and Contra-Flow.
London: Routledge. pp. 201–221.
Castells, M. (2009). Communication Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Christensen, H. S. (2011). Political Activities on the Internet: Slactivism
or Political Particiation by Other Means? First Monday, Vol. 16, Issue 2.
Retrieved August 3, 2012, from http://firstmonday.org/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/
index.php/fm/article/view/3336/2767.
31
32
Coleman, S. (2005). New Mediation and Direct Representation:
Reconceptualizing Representation in the Digital Age. New Media & Society,
Vol. 7, Issue 2, 177–198.
Coleman, S., Blumler. J. G. (2009). The Internet and Democratic Citizenship.
Theory, Practice and Policy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Couldry, N. (2008). Mediatization or Mediation? Alternative Understandings
of the Emergent Space of Digital Storytelling. New Media & Society, Vol. 10,
Issue 3, 373–391.
Dahlgren, P. (2006). Doing Citizenship: the Cultural Origins of Civic Agency
in the Public Sphere. European Journal of Cultural Studies, Vol. 9, Issue 3,
267–286.
Dahlgren, P. (2009). Media and Political Engagement. Citizens,
Communication, and Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dahlgren, P. (2011). Reinventing Participation: Civic Agency and the Web
Environment. In Comunicazione E Civic Engagement. Istituzioni, Cittadini E
Spazi Pubblici Nella Postmodernità. Sapienza Università Di Roma. Dipartimento
Di Comunicazione E Ricerca Sociale, September 22-23, 2011, pp. 1–20.
Dutton, W. H. (2009). The Fifth Estate Emerging through the Network of
Networks. Prometheus, Vol. 27, Issue 1, 1–15.
Dutton, W. H., Blank, G. (2011). Next Generation Users: the Internet in Britain.
Oxford Internet Survey 2011 Report. Oxford Internet Institute, University of
Oxford. Retrieved August 3, 2012, from http://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/publications/
oxis2011_report.pdf.
EHDR – Estonian Human Development Report. Baltic Way(s) of Human
Development: Twenty Years On (2011). Tallinn: AS Eesti Ajalehed.
Eveland, W. P., Scheufele, D. A. (2000). Connecting News Media Use with Gaps in
Knowledge and Participation. Political Communication, Vol. 17, Issue 3, 215-237.
Gross, P. (2009). The Menace of Post-Objective Journalism in the U.S.A. In H.
Bohrmann, E. Klaus, M. Machill (eds.), Media Industry, Journalism Culture and
Communication Policies in Europe. Koln: Herbert von Halem Verlag, pp. 41-64.
Hjarvard, S. (2010). The Mediatization of Society: A Theory of the Media as
Agents of Social and Cultural Change. Nordicom Review, Vol. 29, 105-134.
Lietuvos korupcijos žemėlapis/ Corruption Map Lithuania (2011). Retrieved
September 11, 2012, from: http://www.stt.lt/documents/soc_tyrimai/
Korupcijos_zemelapis.pdf.
Lievrouw, L. A. (2011). Alternative and Activist New Media. Digital Media and
Society Series. Wiley-Blackwell.
Nieminen, H. (2010). The Unraveling Finnish Media Policy Consensus? In
D. Levy, R. Nielsen (eds.), The Changing Business of Journalism and its Role in
Democracy. Oxford: RISJ, pp. 55-67.
Norris, P. (2003). Preaching to the Converted? Pluralism, Participation and
Party Websites. Party Politics, Vol. 9, Issue 1, 21–45.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling Alone. Simon & Shuster.
Quinteller, E., Vissers, S. (2008). The Effect of Internet Use on Political
Participation: An Analysis of Survey Results for 16-Year-Olds in Belgium.
Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 26, 411−427.
Scheufele, D. A., Nisbet M. C. (2002). Being a Citizen Online – New
Opportunities and Dead Ends. Harvard International Journal of Press-Politics,
Vol. 7, 55-75.
Strömbäck, J. (2011). Mediatization and Perceptions of the Media’s Political
Influence. Journalism Studies, Vol. 12, Issue 4, 423-439.
Theocharis, Y. (2011). Young People, Political Participation and Online
Postmaterialism in Greece. New Media & Society, Vol. 13, Issue 2, 203–222.
Thussu, D. K. (2007). Media on the Move: Global Flow and Contra-Flow.
Routledge.
33
34
Tolbert, C. J., McNeal, R. S. (2003). Unraveling the Effects of the Internet on
Political Participation? Political Research Quarterly, Vol. 56, Issue 2, 175-185.
Trappel, J., Nieminen, H., Nord, L. W. (2011). Media for Democracy Monitor:
Leading News Media Compared. University of Gothenburg, Sweden:
Nordicom.
Vihalemm, P. (2012). Trends in Media Use in Estonia 2000-2011. Paper
presented at the annual BAMR: Baltic Association for Media Research
meeting at the University of Latvia in Riga, May 3, 2012.
Zhang, W., Johnson, T., Seltzer, T., Bichard, S. L. (2010). The Revolution will
be Networked: The Influence of Social Networking Sites on Political Attitudes
and Behavior. Social Science Computer Review, Vol. 28, 75–92.
FUNDING
Research study reported here was financed by the Research Council of
Lithuania (www.lmt.lt) and the project “Lietuvos žurnalistika: kontekstas
ir kultūra” (Journalism in Lithuania: Context and Culture), 2011-2012.
Project No.: MIP 2012/2011. More information about the project is available:
www.MediaResearch.lt.

mediatized participation and forms of media use and

Transcription

Similar documents

Mathew Hall, Peter Hegedüs, Josip Maras, Marco Mori, Zoltán

Miecys Group Corporate presentation

Dowload a large version of this poster

Miecys Group Corporate presentation

BA_ Darbo skelbimas EN web

2013 Banking and Credit Card Survey

12-th Conference of Baltic Societies of Nephrology

Handelsbanken, UAB Geležinio Vilko str. 18 A, Vilnius

EuropE Trivia Quiz

PROMOTION CRITERIA EMPLOYED IN PARASTAT ALS: A CASE